I upgraded from an iPad Air 2 to the new 9.7" Pro for Pencil support. I like having great image quality, but the truth is the Air 2 already looks fantastic. I only cared about doodling, I really wasn't expecting much extra out of the screen.<p>WOW.<p>Apple hit it out of the park with this one. There are times using my iPad (which I'm doing right now) where the screen starts to remind me of a Kindle reader. Thanks to retina resolution pictures look fantastic and I can't see any pixels on text. The display is so close to the face of the device (since the gaps and thick screens have been eliminated over the years) that it seems like the pictures on the surface of the device. Now with TrueTone the white point on the display seems to match what's actually in the room.<p>The end result of all this is that, much like a Kindle, the display seems to "disappear". It times you get this interesting little fact were you feel a bit like you're reading a piece of printed plastic. The giveaways that it's a computer screen of been minimized to such a degree that you can almost trick yourself at times.<p>I don't know where I'd find some images that use more than the standard sRGB to see what they really look like on this iPad, but just from what I've seen with normal content I'm quite impressed. I really hope Apple includes this technology in the iPhone 7.
Also see Craig Hockenberry piece, for more on the implications of all this for developers and designers: <a href="http://blog.iconfactory.com/2016/04/looking-at-the-future/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.iconfactory.com/2016/04/looking-at-the-future/</a><p>One of his key points: <i>As a developer, you’ll quickly realize that the scope of these changes will make your update to Retina graphics look like a walk in the park.</i><p>Craig is also currently working on a book “that helps you understand color in laymen’s terms, use color management with step-by-step instructions for popular apps like Photoshop, and guides you with the work necessary to create great looking web and native apps.”
Why DCI-P3 and not Adobe RGB? While they're roughly the same gamut size, with P3 having more crimsons and Adobe more aquas, Adobe actually covers most of the CMYK color space, while P3 does not (it is lacking in the aquas, like sRGB), and Adobe has a larger gamut in the highlights (due to its less saturated, and therefore brighter, red primary).<p>Not to mention the fact that Adobe RGB has long been established (albeit not terribly widely used) in the graphics/photo industry. As another poster mentioned, even Apple couldn't find any P3 images to use as wallpapers, so settled on Adobe RGB ones instead.<p>What's their goal? Are they aiming for better compatibility with digital cinema?
It's nice to have a wider gamut (I'm using NEC/DELL wide-gamut displays professionally since a decade and I calibrate them regularly), but very few will notice the difference given the incredibly poor contrast in outdoor conditions.<p>I've recently switched to a newer laptop (lenovo x1 carbon), which is not matte (at least, the version I was given - with the touchscreen). While the resolution and color depth is <i>much</i> better than my previous hp elitebook, the screen is just too glossy. The added contrast is quickly lost due to the extra glare even in normal office conditions.<p>Nobody seems to care nowdays, but the anti-glare coating makes a <i>huge</i> difference in 90% of the scenarios. The claim of reduced brightness is <i>bullshit</i> unless you're working on a monitor in fixed light conditions.<p>On a tablet with a pen, which I'd really love to use outside to take notes, the added color depth is going to be useless.
This reminds me of a Dell laptop I had a number of years ago that had a WRGB display that was <i>gorgeous</i>. I still think it looked better (albeit lower res) than current high-end laptop displays.<p>Why did WRGB never catch on? It seemed so good.